The complainant asked the European Commission to give public access to documents concerning its legislative proposal for the 'Nature Restoration Law', in particular concerning input it received on the proposal from stakeholders. The Commission identified 27 documents as falling within the scope of the request and granted access to parts of seven of these. In refusing access to the remainder, it invoked an exception under the EU legislation on public access to documents, arguing disclosure could undermine an ongoing decision-making process. The Commission then failed to reply within the applicable deadline to the complaints request that it review its decision ('confirmatory application'), which implies tacit refusal, according to the legislation.

Based on the inspection of the documents by the Ombudsman inquiry team, the Ombudsman was not convinced that the Commission had been justified in refusing access to the documents in their entirety. The Ombudsman shared her preliminary views with the Commission, urging it to reconsider its initial position and grant the widest possible access to the documents.

Three months after the time limit for the adoption of a confirmatory decision had ended, the Commission gave wide public access to the documents, redacting only limited personal data. However, as the Nature Restoration Law had been adopted in the meantime, the documents could no longer be used by the complainant for the purpose they had intended, namely, actively to participate in the EU’s legislative decision making.

In light of the clear case-law that requires EU institutions to apply a particularly high standard of transparency to legislative documents, the Ombudsman found that the Commission’s refusal to grant public access to the documents, even in part, before the legislative procedure had ended, constituted maladministration. However, as the documents had been disclosed, no useful purpose could be served by making a recommendation.